linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120815125555.GG23985@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:55:55 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/11] kmem accounting basic infrastructure

On Wed 15-08-12 12:12:23, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:33 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > This can
> > > be quite confusing.  I am still not sure whether we should mix the two
> > > things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to
> > > touch the other limit anyway.  Do you have a strong reason to mix the
> > > user and kernel counters?
> > 
> > This is funny, because the first opposition I found to this work was
> > "Why would anyone want to limit it separately?" =p
> > 
> > It seems that a quite common use case is to have a container with a
> > unified view of "memory" that it can use the way he likes, be it with
> > kernel memory, or user memory. I believe those people would be happy to
> > just silently account kernel memory to user memory, or at the most have
> > a switch to enable it.
> > 
> > What gets clear from this back and forth, is that there are people
> > interested in both use cases.
> 
> Haven't we already had this discussion during the Prague get together?
> We discussed the use cases and finally agreed to separate accounting for
> k and then k+u mem because that satisfies both the Google and Parallels
> cases.  No-one was overjoyed by k and k+u but no-one had a better
> suggestion ... is there a better way of doing this that everyone can
> agree to?
> We do need to get this nailed down because it's the foundation of the
> patch series.

There is a slot in MM/memcg minisum at KS so we have a slot to discuss
this.

> 
> James
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/